The Fallibility of Partial DNA in Courts

DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states. (Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as “good” evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. “In most cases, the tests that are used are well established and do not require a separate hearing” (Hails, 160)

Due to the uniqueness of DNA it has become a powerful tool in criminal investigations

DNA is considered an individuals genetic fingerprint, thus it is exclusive to each and every individual. Since this exclusivity exists, DNA is a tool used for identification purposes. It has been utilized for investigations of serious crimes, identification of individuals killed in mass disasters, wars and paternity uncertainties1. Since the inception of the use of DNA in the 1980’s thousands of criminals have been caught and prosecuted with the help of DNA evidence2. Additionally, countless victims of mass disasters have been identified through DNA and returned to their loved ones. Although, there are various benefits to employing DNA it does not come without a sundry of ethical and legal concerns. The ethical concerns that have presented themselves are questions involving scientific reliability, DNA evidence in court, human rights, and finally the other uses of the DNA database.

We will examine the importance of DNA in the conviction of Tommie Lee Andrews and the significance of this decision in the United States Judicial System. We will discuss an overview of some of the essential elements in conducting utilizing this DNA evidence and its repercussions. This case signified the first time in the United Sates that DNA evidence was actually admissible in court proceedings during a criminal trial.

In November of 1983, 15 year old Lynda Mann was found raped and murdered on a deserted road, and although police were able to obtain a semen sample from her murderer the case remained unsolved. In 1986 the killer struck again murdering 15 year old Dawn Ashworth, once again leaving behind semen, but this time the police were able to use DNA profiling to match the semen to a suspect. Colin Pitchfork became the first person to be caught based on mass DNA screening, and the first to be convicted based on DNA profiling. The use of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) in the criminal justice system has greatly tipped the scales in favor of law enforcement, and changed the world that we live in. Court cases that in the past relied heavily on eye witness testimony and circumstantial evidence now have science to back them up. DNA analysis has revolutionized the criminal justice system, and even though there are some flaws, the use of DNA evidence should continue to be used by law enforcement.

DNA evidence is extremely helpful in criminal trials not only because it can determine the guilt of a suspect, but also because it can keep innocent people from going to jail. The suspect must leave a sample of their DNA at the crime scene in order for testing to occur, but DNA can be found in the form of many things such as semen, blood, hair, saliva, or skin scrapings. According to Newsweek, "thousands of people have been convicted by DNA's nearly miraculous ability to search out suspects across space and time… hundreds of innocent people have also been freed, often after years behind bars, sometimes just short of the death chamber" (Adler ). Though some may think it is a waste of time to go

As an instrumental character in the adversarial process the American Criminal Justice system uses, the impact of DNA evidence directly affects the way prosecutors present their case during trial. When a prosecutor introduced DNA forensic evidence to the American courtroom in 1987, that DNA forensic evidence was the catalyst that secured the conviction of a rapist, Tommie Lee Andrews, in Orange County, Florida (State

Advances in DNA technology has expanded greatly in the world of forensic science. In the past a vast number of crime scene evidence was not considered for analysis is now being tested. Trace DNA is more effective in this century when convicting a criminal than it was 20-30 years ago. Due to the consist improvement of DNA technology forensic scientist are able to put away criminals the correct way.

Since about 1986 DNA testing has been used in approximately 50,000 criminal investigations in the U.S. alone. “DNA evidence is most often found in sexual assaults. About three-fourths of DNA evidence examined by the FBI and other labs consist of semen specimens. About a third of all FBI test exonerate wrongfully accused men. A quarter of the tests are

Convictions prior to the advancement of DNA testing in the criminal justice system were commonly found to be later wrongful and due to eyewitness misidentification (Scheck & Neufeld, 2001). Hence, there has been increasing research by psychologists in eyewitness memory and particularly in line up practices. In criminal identification, a simultaneous line up (SIM) is typically used and involves presenting the witness with all line-up suspects at once with the offender (target) placed amongst other innocent suspects (foils) that resemble the offender (Wells & Olsen, 2003). With these conditions, witnesses have a tendency to compare suspects with each other in order to determine the one that have the closest resemblance with the offender, a process called relative judgement (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero & Lindsay, 2001). In the simultaneous line-ups with target present, there are more hits as the closest resemblance is the perpetrator but while in target absent conditions, the closest matching foil is often picked and resulting in more false alarms (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero & Lindsay, 2001). Therefore, to prevent the potential of misidentification, alternative line-up presentations have been developed to inhibit relative judgement processes such as sequential line-up in Lindsay and Wells (1985).

The article I chose is titled, DNA in the Criminal Justice System: The DNA Success Story in Perspective which described the importance of DNA testing in a criminal investigation. This falls under the category of “confirming the guilty and protecting the innocence” in the NIJ report. According to Mapes et al. (2015), DNA testing is one of the most important aspects of criminal investigation as the DNA found in crime scenes can be used against a criminal or protect an innocent victim by resolving the crime. In the article, Mapes et al. (2015) describes the study that was conducted in order to ensure the effectiveness of DNA testing. Amongst many case files, 243 cases were selected to use in the study. These cases contained DNA evidences which

Before the 1980s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics. In 1984, British geneticist Alec Jeffreys of the University of Leicester discovered an interesting new marker in the human genome. Most DNA information is the same in every human, but the junk code between genes is unique to every person. Junk DNA used for investigative purposes can be found in blood, saliva, perspiration, sexual fluid, skin tissue, bone marrow, dental pulp, and hair follicles (Phillips, 2008). By analyzing this junk code, Jeffreys found certain sequences of 10 to 100 base pairs repeated multiple times. These tandem repeats are also the same for all people, but the number of repetitions is highly variable. Before this discovery, a drop of blood at a crime scene could only reveal a person’s blood type, plus a few proteins unique to certain people. Now DNA forensics can expose a person’s gender, race, susceptibility to diseases, and even propensity for high aggression or drug abuse (Phillips, 2008). More importantly, the certainty of DNA evidence is extremely powerful in court. Astounded at this technology’s almost perfect accuracy, the FBI changed the name of its Serology Unit to the DNA Analysis Unit in 1988 when they began accepting requests for DNA comparisons (Lewis, 1989).

Before the 1980s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics. In 1984, British geneticist Alec Jeffreys of the University of Leicester discovered an interesting new marker in the human genome. Most DNA information is the same in every human, but the junk code between genes is unique to every person. Junk DNA used for investigative purposes can be found in blood, saliva, perspiration, sexual fluid, skin tissue, bone marrow, dental pulp, and hair follicles (Phillips, 2008). By analyzing this junk code, Jeffreys found certain sequences of 10 to 100 base pairs repeated multiple

Another reason why some believe that DNA is a wonderful tool to have is that some feel eyewitness testimony is not as accurate. In 1977 and 1979, the Bird Road Rapist attacked over 25 women. Luis Diaz in 1980 was convicted of eight charges of rape on Bird Road. The identification and testimonies from the victims landed Diaz with multiple life sentences” (Sainvil, 2012). He spent 26 years behind prison walls even though he did not match the description that was given in the beginning of the case. During that time two witnesses also recanted their statement. It was not until 2005 that Diaz was actually exonerated of the charge as a result of DNA testing.

Law Enforcement keep notes on arrests that have founded people innocent of crimes, and retention of an innocent person's DNA can be charge or otherwise, seen as a invasion of that person’s privacy and civil liberties. Dr. Alec Jeffrey, a former professor at the University of Leicester laboratory, consulted with his lawyers to develop the new type of technique called DNA profiling. His technique would prove that DNA fingerprinting (profiling) can individualize evidence compared to the blood typing. DNA profiling compares 13 standard STRs to form a profile. The analysis used by the scientists, uses PCR and STRs to profile an individual. It is highly unlike that two individuals’ identical numbers of repeats for all 13 STRs, will match, which DNA fails is hardly never due to a successful match of 385 million to 1. This makes DNA profiling the most accurate tool in Forensics.